Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare the destructive/idempotent profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the mandatory review-then-confirm flow, the ten-minute confirm window, the 48-hour undo limit, and exactly what each undo type does (update returns prior rows, new meal removed, deletion restored). This is rich behavioral disclosure the annotations alone do not provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and the key constraint are front-loaded and most sentences earn their place by covering distinct behaviors (alternatives, protocol, limits, undo semantics). It runs long, and the trailing boilerplate about the 'statement' field and account is only loosely tied to invoking this tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an undo/confirm-flow tool with an output schema already defined, the description covers the decision criteria, the multi-step protocol, time limits, and per-case undo behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single confirm param, so the schema carries baseline meaning. The description still adds real semantics: confirm is true only on the second call, must occur after customer agreement and within ten minutes, and the first call must review without changing anything.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise verb+resource+scope: undoes only the latest meal write, which may be a newly recorded meal or an update. It explicitly distinguishes itself from update_meal and warns against chaining undos, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('customer immediately asks to take back that write itself'), when-not-to-use ('never unwind intermediate history', 'never chain several undos'), and the correct alternative ('Use update_meal revise directly'). It also spells out the required two-step confirm protocol and the 48-hour/ten-minute windows.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.